Impeachment hearings

[_mikwut]

honor,

What actually happened? Unwilling or incompetent. Engage with the evidence and show that it would be reasonable to maintain a position of skepticism knowing the facts. You aren't showing knowledge beyond the superficial. That's essentially my point regarding Trump

So you think a debate between me and you on who has watched more Cuomo and Cillizza about what the "real" facts of the Biden issue are will somehow demonstrate that Alexander Hamilton had it all wrong respecting the danger of totally partisan impeachments? That's a nice red herring. Similar to E trying to distort my comment as if I was entering into a debate about something altogether different.

This is simple. partisan, completely partisan, impeachments are dangerous and not appropriate under the standards of the constitution. When the exact high crime is vague and found in shadowy general statements like abuse of power that inapproroateness in furthered.

Why don't you address that head on? It seems the only answer you and E give to it is your certainty respecting the abuse of power is certain, which doesn't address the issue of when is it appropriate to proceed with impeachment when it is 100% partisan? And I mean where is that found constitutionally?

mikwut

[_moksha]

The House is now ready to begin their impeachment vote. The Senate is now ready to give a high-five to crime.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think there were any people adopting this stance here, but to those who thought that Democrats were engaging in a rushed and narrow impeachment as some elaborate trap that would be revealed any moment now, ahahaha, you idiots. They are indeed this hapless.

[_mikwut]

E,

I don't know if your talking to me or not. If you are, I am addressing one issue of partisanship. That it is inappropriate to proceed without it.

And to your previous post Johnson's impeachment was universally understood historical as weak and the law it was based deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

mikwut

[_Gunnar]

E,And to your previous post Johnson's impeachment was universally understood historical as weak and the law it was based deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

mikwut

Your criticism of EA's point number 1 might be valid, but he clearly had you on points 2 and 3--especially #3. It is blazingly clear that the Republicans are hellbent on defending Trump, no matter how serious and even incontrovertible the accusations against him are or might prove to be. This is especially clear when one considers how cravenly and suddenly many of them dropped their previous, condemnatory criticism of Trump as soon as it was clear that he won the nomination, let alone the election itself. It was as sudden and blatant as merely flipping a switch.

Remember also that an unusually large number of Republican politicians have chosen to retire or not run for reelection this year, rather than continue to openly support or be associated with Trump.

[_Gunnar]

Trump is so confident that he will get away scot free with soliciting the aid of foreign governments to help his election chances that he is brazenly still doing it.

Trump’s solicitation of Zelenskyy is clearly an astonishing abuse of power and quite likely a crime all on its own. But it is also not a one-off incident. Trump has a pattern of asking foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections to help him win. But, so far, there have been zero consequences for Trump’s actions, despite the Mueller Report and the chair of the Federal Election Commission making it clear that accepting or soliciting foreign interference in the election is a serious crime. This has left Trump undeterred from doing it again with just under a year to go before Election Day.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/busted ... interests/

The pattern is more than clear: Trump has repeatedly asked foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections to help him maintain political power. And there is no reason to expect him to stop. This is what’s at stake in his impeachment.

Trump reportedly pushed Australian PM to investigate Mueller inquiry – as it happened

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... s-n1060526

[_EAllusion]

And to your previous post Johnson's impeachment was universally understood historical as weak and the law it was based deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

mikwut

This is question begging in the context of your point or a trivial refutation of it. It's also false. All impeachments involved bipartisanship, therefore, when there is the absence of it, we can tell it is illegitimate doesn't work when all impeachments did not involve bipartisanship. All impeachments did not involve bipartisanship. If you reply that all legitimate impeachments do and take it for granted that Johnson's impeachment was not, you've cut yourself down to a sample size of one to draw your generalization from. Legitimate impeachments involve bipartisanship because the attempted impeachment of Nixon, coincidentally occurring at one of the highest points of partisan breakdown in US history, involved some bipartisanship is a failed argument.

Regarding historical understanding of the legitimacy of the Johnson impeachment, this changed around the time I took AP US history high school, which is now over 20 years ago. At the time I took it, the curricula had already shifted to, "It used to be viewed negatively; however..." My understanding is since then opinion has turned increasingly favorable to his impeachment, but I'm more certain that it is not universally viewed negatively. It is simply false that this is the universal opinion of academics now.

You are just making up things as it suits you.

P.S. The votes for Johnson's impeachment did solely come from Republicans.

[_EAllusion]

Here is a historian of the Reconstruction arguing in favor of Trump being impeached by creating an analogy to Johnson:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... mp-office/

[_EAllusion]

Legitimate impeachments involve bipartisanship because the attempted impeachment of Nixon, coincidentally occurring at one of the highest points of partisan breakdown in US history, involved some bipartisanship it is a failed argument.

The attempted impeachment of Nixon contains some good evidence why your argument is false, even. Nixon enjoyed a large amount of support from Republicans up to the very end. He resigned because he wasn't going to be able to hold onto 33 Republican Senators to avoid removal. That doesn't mean he wasn't going to hold onto any. He enjoyed a fair amount of support from institutional Republicans up to the moment of his resignation and even after.

Unlike your assertion regarding Johnson, Nixon's attempted impeachment is universally regarded as justified. That's why references to it in the context of Trump carry such weight if regarded as valid. Based on your argument here Mikwut, it seems that you regard it as legitimate. Yet, even during the impeachment of Nixon, again occurring at one of the low points of party polarization in American history, Nixon got a lot of Republicans to back him due to partisan allegiance.

This proves that it is possible for people to get elected who will put partisan biases above propriety in the context of impeachable offenses. It's not a leap to contend that a critical mass of them can be be elected to produce the same parliamentary bloc voting we've increasingly seen on all manner of political issues. To argue that a party cannot be exclusively, or near exclusively, consist of people elected with that mentality doesn't pass the laugh test

[_Gunnar]

Thanks for that additional exposition of historical perspective, EA. You made it all the more clear why Trump deserves to be impeached, regardless of whether or not it actually results in his removal from office. It is obvious to me that the case for impeachment grows stronger day by day. Trump's own behavior and propensity to "shoot himself in the foot" will, I am confident, probably turn out to be one of the strongest arguments favoring his own impeachment. The man just can't help himself! I can't imagine that Republicans would fail to demand impeachment of a Democrat President guilty of even a fraction of the worst things Trump has said and done while in office. Their hypocrisy is palpable!